^^^ 


XJl^- 


■j    THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

■I     Ex-President  Taft  Ansiuers 
^'  Senator  Lodge 


LETTER 

OF 


EX- PRESIDENT 
WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 


From  the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger 
of  August  27,  1919 


(Printed  in  the  Congressional  Record,  August  27,  1919) 


134051^-10809 


WASHINGTON 
1919 


University  of  Californi 

Southern  Regional 

Library  Facility 


(x.A  ,■>     »  L\  Ol'yl^ 


LETTER 

OB- 

EX-PRESIDENT  WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT. 


Taft  Says  Senator  Lodge's  Speeches  Are  Inconsistent  ;  Answers 
Treaty  Arguments — Purposes  of  Five  Great  Powers  in  League 
Totally  Unlike  Those  of  Holy  Alliance  ;  Says  Article  3  Does 
Not  Enlarge  Powers  as  Charged  by  Senator — Former  President 
Interprets  Articles  10  and  11 — Declares  Nations  Must  Continoh 
League  Entered  Into  to  Conduct  War  and  Now  Framed  for  Peace. 

"  Senator  Lodge's  speech  on  tlie  league  of  nations  is  an  impor- 
tant event  in  tlie  history  of  the  issue  over  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty  and  the  covenant  of  the  league.  In  point  of  continuous 
service  he  is  the  oldest  Member  of  Congress,  as  he  is  one  of  the 
ablest,  and  he  is  the  longest  in  experience  upon  the  Foreign  Rela- 
tions Committee  of  the  Senate.  What  he  says,  therefore,  is  en- 
titled to  great  weight.  But  the  Senator  can  not  complain  if  those 
who  differ  with  him  seek  to  break  the  force  of  what  he  says  by 
pointing  out  action  and  speech  by  him  in  the  past  quite  inconsis- 
tent with  his  present  attitude.  Nor  will  he  claim  that  his  pres- 
tige and  experience  give  his  arguments  and  conclusions  imr.uinity 
fi'om  analysis  and  answer.  Indeed,  the  speech  of  Senator  Wil- 
liams, impromptu  as  it  was  and  marred  as  it  was  by  its  personal 
references  to  Mr.  Lodge,  answered  with  all  the  vigor  of  the  de- 
bater much  of  what  Mr.  Lodge  in  his  carefully  prepared  address 
had  urged.  Mr.  Williams's  remarks  were  directed  toward  the 
trend  of  Mr.  Lodge's  speech  p-nd  his  general  attitude,  rather  than 
to  his  carefully  drawn  objections  to  particular  articles  of  the 
covenant. 

nOLY  ALLIANCE  ANALOGY  FALSE. 

"  The  first  great  argument  of  Mr.  Lodge  against  the  league  was 
based  on  the  analogy  between  this  league  and  the  holy  alliance, 
in  which  he  emphasized  the  declarations  by  its  constituent  abso- 
lute monarchs  of  their  high  purpose  and  noble  ends  in  the  niala- 
tonanco  of  the  alliance,  and  then  showed  that  for  35  years  the 
result  of  its  machinations  was  a  curse  to  the  world. 

13495-1— 19S09  3 


"  It  noods  no  profound  knowledge  of  history  to  realize  how 
lacking:  in  force  and  fairness  such  an  argument  by  analogy  Is. 
The  Holy  Alliance  was  created  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  on  the 
thrones  of  Europe  occui^nts  who  were  legitimate  heirs  in  their 
divine  right  of  ruling  and  of  preventing  revolution  against 
them.  It  was  a  conspiracy  of  absolute  monarchs  to  maintain 
the  rule  of  their  class, 

"  Mr.  LoDGK  objects  that  the  five  great  powers  will  control  this 
league  as  the  Holy  Alliance  was  controlled.  Five  great  powers 
are  given  large  influence  in  the  management  of  the  policy  of  this 
league.  It  nmst  be  so,  and  it  ought  to  be  so,  because  they  are 
the  ones  upon  Avhora  the  burden  of  maintaining  the  prestige  and 
influence  of  the  league  for  good  is  to  be  heaviest.  But  wiiatever 
is  to  be  done  by  them  must  be  done  by  unanimous  action.  Can 
we  conceive  of  the  United  States,  Great  Britiiin,  and  France, 
ruled  by  their  peoples  as  they  are,  uniting  to  work  such  pur- 
poses as  disgraced  and  broke  up  the  Holy  Alliance? 

DEMKS    UXLIMITEI)    POWEU. 

"The  first  provision  of  the  league  which  Senator  Lodgk  at- 
tacks is  a  iiaragraph  from  article  ?>,  reading  as  follows: 

"The  fissenibly  may  rti^l  at  its  meetings  with  any  matter  within  the 
aphert'  of  action  of  the  league  or  affecting  the  peace  of  the  -world. 

"  He  urges  that  this  confers  unlimit4?d  power  upon  the  league 
and  gi-eatly  eiihu'ges  the  field  of  action  in  which  we  shall  be 
involved  e\en  t)eyond  that  in  which  the  Holy  Alliance  was  en- 
gage<l.  This  view  can  not  be  sustiiined.  The  meaning  of  this 
paragi'apli  is,  of  course,  to  be  determined  not  only  by  the  words 
used  but  also  by  Ihe  immediate  context  and  its  relation  to  the 
rest  of  the  covenant. 

"Article  o  is  an  article  prescribing  the  oi-gauization  ami  pro- 
cedure of  the  assembly.  Article  4  is  an  article  performing  the 
sanic  oflico  in  respect  to  the  council,  lliey  describe  the  mem- 
borshiii,  the  times  and  places  of  the  meetings,  the  subjects  matter 
to  hv  consid(>red  and  dealt  with  at  each  meeting,  and  the  voting 
power  and  nninber  of  representatives  of  each  member  for  the 
rosju'ctive  l)odi(\<.  The  subjects  matter  which  may  be  dealt 
with  at  any  nicding  of  either  are  described  in  exactly  the  same 
lainr.  (   -19S00 


words  for  both  bodies,  to  wit,  *  any  matter  within  the  sphere 
of  action  of  the  league  or  affecting  the  peace  of  the  world.' 

"  By  article  5  decisions  of  the  council  must  be  by  unanimous 
vote  of  representatives  present  at  the  meeting.  The  object  of  this 
language  is,  therefore,  to  notify  members  of  the  league  and  their 
representatives  in  the  council  or  assembly  that  the  whole  busi- 
ness of  the  league  is  in  order  to  be  considered  at  any  meeting 
without  special  notice,  and  that  their  interests  may  be  affected 
In  their  absence.  This  signification  is  emphasized  by  the  clause 
immediately  following  that  in  question  in  article  4,  which  pro- 
vides that  any  member  with  no  representative  in  the  council 
must  be  invited  to  send  a  representative  to  any  meeting  at  which 
matters  affecting  it  are  to  be  considered.  This  is  not  necessary 
in  the  case  of  the  assembly,  because  every  member  has  a  repre- 
sentative in  the  assembly. 

POWERS  ARE   UNCHANGED. 

"  The  general  language  quoted  by  Senator  Lodge  in  article  3 
and  the  identical  language  in  article  4  are  thus  merely  to  put 
members  on  notice  of  what  may  be  considered  at  every  meeting. 
In  neither  article  is  the  language  to  be  treated  as  an  independent 
grant  of  power.  The  functions  and  powers  of  the  assembly  and 
the  council  are  what  they  are  elsewhere  in  the  covenant  defined 
to  bo,  and  are  no  greater  by  reason  of  this  clause.  Otherwise 
the  assembly  and  the  council  would  have  the  same  functions  and 
the  same  powers,  for  the  language  of  the  clause  as  to  each  is  the 
same.  Every  other  article  of  the  covenant  shows  this  not  to  be 
the  case.  The  clause  cited  by  Senator  Lodge  neither  enlarges 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  league  nor  the  obligations  of  its  membci's 
beyond  their  specific  limitation  as  set  out  in  other  articles. 

REPLIES   TO   IRISH   ARGUMENT. 

"Again,  article  H  is  relied  upon  by  the  Senator  to  show  that 

it  is  the  purpose  of  the  league  to  interfere  to  suppress  rebellions 

and  revolutions.    Thus  Ireland,  it  is  thought,  can  be  brought  in. 

The  first  sentence  of  the  article  reads  as  follows : 

"Any  war  or  threat  of  war,  whetlior  immodiatcly  affecting  any  of  the 

mcmlicrs  of  the  league  or  not,  is  hereby  declared  a  matter  of  concern  to 

the  whole  league,   and   the  league  shall   take   any  action   that   may   be 

deemed  wise  and  etlectual  to  safeguard  the  iK'ace  of  nations.     In  case 

134954—10809 


G 

any  such  pinprgoiujy  should  arise,  the  sofietiiry  general  shall,  on  the  re- 
ouost  of  any  member  of  the  league,  forthwith  summon  a  meeting  of  the 
council. 

"  The  council  is  suniiiioned  to  adviso  the  members  of  the  league 
what  ousht  to  he  done,  and  its  advice  must  be  unanimous,  and 
upon  that  advice  the  meml)ers  are  to  act  in  their  discretion  and 
to  j»erf(>i-m  their  obligations  under  the  covenant  of  the  league  as 
they  in  good  faith  understand  them.  Such  a  provision  does  not 
enlarge  the  obligations  of  the  members;  it  only  provides  for 
prompt  cooperation  in  an  emergency  which  may  be  the  occasion 
upon  which  under  other  articles  of  the  league  the  members  may 
act. 

NO  EFFECT  ON  REBELLIONS. 

"  Such  a  cas(>,  for  instance,  as  a  war  between  two  countries  not 
members  of  the  league  might  certainly  affect  the  peace  of  nations. 
Nor  need  it  be  denied  that  where  internal  disturbance,  as  a 
Bolshevist  upturning  of  society,  becomes  militant  and  .seeks  to 
upturn  society  of  neighboring  nations,  this  might  well  be  made 
a  matter  of  concern  to  the  whole  league.  But  there  is  nothing 
from  these  words  or  any  other  part  of  the  covenant  which  brings 
an  internal  rebellion  or  revolution  yithin  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
league.  '  War  or  threat  of  war '  contained  in  article  11  means 
something  that  affects  the  international  relations  between  coun- 
tries. This  is  clearly  shown  by  its  last  clause,  in  which  it  is 
also  declared  to  be  the  fundamental  right  of  each  member  of  the 
league  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  assembly  or  of  the  council 
any  circumstance  whatever  affecting  international  relations 
which  threaten  to  disturb  either  the  peace  or  the  good  under- 
standing between  nations  upon  which  peace  depends. 

KKSXniCTS    MEMBKIiS'   Dl'TIKS. 

"  If  article  11  is  to  have  the  construction  which  Senator  Lougk 
maintains  and  is  to  refer  to  internal  rebellions  and  revolutions, 
then  it  is  very  strange  that  the  fundamental  right  of  eacli  mem- 
ber of  the  league  is  to  Itring  to  the  attt>ntion  of  the  as.sembly  or 
the  cotuK-il  under  article  11  only  those  circumstances  which  dis 
turli  international  relations  and  the  peace  and  the  good  undi^'i- 
staiiding  Itetwccn  nations. 

••  To  support  his  view  Senator  Lodgk  refers  to  the  provision  in 
the  tn>aty  with  (Jermuny  which  requires  Poland  and  the  Czech 


and  other  States  to  make  treaties  with  the  five  great  powers 
guaranteeing  the  religious  and  other  rights  of  minorities.  This 
does  not  at  all  Indicate  a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  league  to  in- 
tervene in  the  internal  affairs  of  nations  generally.  Poland  and 
the  Czech  States  are  new  nations  born  of  the  war  and  this  treaty, 
the  record  of  whose  peoples  in  respect  to  religious  intolerance  and 
oppression  of  the  Jews  and  others  has  not  been  good.  But  the 
treaty  power  is  to  be  vested  in  untried  and  unrestrained  majori- 
ties. It  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
treaty  that  these  nations  be  made  stable  bulwarks  against  Ger- 
man plots,  and  such  a  guaranty  will  serve  to  steady  them. 

DOES    NOT    ADD    TO    COVENANT. 

"  The  example  for  such  a  guaranty  was  set  in  the  congress  of 
Berlin  in  the  establishment  of  Roumania,  Bulgaria,  and  Serbia 
as  independent  nations.  It  is  a  special  provision,  and  leaves  to 
the  five  groat  powers  the  obligation  to  enforce  the  guaranty  in 
favor  of  minorities  in  countries  whose  birth  and  maintenance 
the  signatories  to  the  treaty  who  won  the  war  are  responsible. 
It  docs  not  in  any  degree  enlarge  the  meaning  of  the  covenant 
as  applied  to  its  members  generally. 

"  Senator  Lodge  objects  to  the  failure  in  the  covenant  to  am- 
plify the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  provided  in  the  league,  and  to 
provide  a  tribunal  for  hearing  justiciable  questions.  This  is  a 
fair  criticism  of  the  league,  and  it  is  a  defect  in  the  plan — a  defect 
which  may  be  cured  by  amendment,  and  which,  we  may  hope, 
will  be  so  cured.  In  respect  to  justiciable  questions,  it  would 
have  been  much  better  to  have  a  judicial  court,  as  Mr.  Root 
pointed  out,  to  which  all  members  should  bo  obliged  to  resort, 
remitting  unjusticiable  questions  to  the  council. 

"  The  first  steps  to  be  taken  after  the  league  is  adopted  should 
be  to  perfect  its  machinery  in  this  regard.  But  it  secnjs  quite 
unwarranted  to  argue,  as  Senator  Lodge  does,  that  the  action  of 
the  council  or  assembly  in  respect  to  justiciable  questions  is  to 
be  determined  on  political  or  diplomatic  grounds,  and  not  as  an 
impartial  body  controlled  by  the  principles  of  international  law. 
Justiciable  questions  are  those  which  in  Iheir  nature  are  capable 
of  settlement  on  principles  of  international  law. 
134051— 19S09 


8 

•'  The  preamble  recites  the  purpose  of  the  league  to  be  the '  pre- 
scription of  open,  just,  and  honorable  relations  l)etween  nations,' 
*  the  firm  establishment  of  the  understandings  of  international 
law  as  to  the  actual  rule  of  conduct  among  governments,'  and 
•the  maintenance  of  justice  and  a  scrupulous  respect  for  all 
treaty  obligations  In  the  dealings  of  organized  peoples  with  one 
or  another.' 

"Article  18  declares  as  among  those  suitable  for  arbitration 

certain  justiciable  questions  In  lauguage  suggested  by  Mr.  Root, 

ns  follows: 

'•  Disputes  ns  to  the  intorprotation  of  n  treaty,  as  to  any  question  of 
International  law,  as  to  the  existence  of  any  fact  which  if  established 
would  constiluto  a  breach  of  any  international  obligation,  or  as  to  the 
extent  and  nature  of  the  reparation  to  be  made  for  any  such  breach. 

PKOVIDES  FOR  AUBITRATION. 

"  The  article  imposes  on  parties  to  a  dispute  the  dutj^  of  agree- 
ing to  submit  to  arbitration  questions  '  which  they  recognize  as 
suitable  for  arbitration.'  Even  if  this  article  be  held  not  to 
require  a  party  to  a  controversy  to  submit  such  justiciable  ques- 
tions as  are  here  specified  to  arbitration,  as  may  well  be  affirma- 
atively  argued,  certainly  it  is  most  unwarranted  to  claim  that 
when  such  justiciable  questions  are  carried  to  the  council  or 
assembly  for  settlemont  the  recommendation  of  that  body  is  not 
to  bo  governed  by  principles  of  international  law,  and  the  func- 
tion of  the  tribunal  in  disposing  of  them  is  not  to  be  judicial. 
The  fact  tliat  the  representatives  of  the  parties  to  the  dispute  are 
to  bo  loft  out  of  the  council  or  asseml)ly  in  reaching  the  needed 
unanimity  of  conclusion  confirms  the  judicial  character  of  the 
function. 

"Calling  for  another  league  than  this  league  l)ccause  of  this 
and  other  defects,  Senator  Lodge  urges : 

"  Let  us  unite  with  the  world  to  promote  the  peaceful  settlement  of  all 
international  disputes.  Let  us  try  to  develop  international  law.  Let 
us  a.ssociale  ourselves  with  other  nations  for  these  jjiuposes. 

FINDS    SENATOR    INCONSI.STE.NT. 

"  Tln.<  critici.sm  and  language  .sounds  u  bit  strange  coming  from 

a  Sfuator  \vh(j  ]K'lr)ed  to  defeat  the  general  arbitration  treaties 

nmdr  bctwocn   (he   United   8tat*'S  iind   I'"rance  and    tlie  United 

Stales  and  (Jreal  Uril.-iln,  wiiieli  provided  for  a  settlement  of  all 

i;i4'j54--19SU9 


9 

justiciable  issues  arising  between  them  and  a  means  of  determin- 
ing whether  a  question  arising  was  justiciable  or  not.  These 
treaties  were  loaded  down  with  such  exceptions  that  it  seemed  oC 
no  use  whatever  to  invite  the  acquiescence  of  France  and  Great 
Britain  in  the  narrowing  amendments  that  were  insisted  on  iu 
the  Senate  and  supported  and  voted  for  by  Senator  Lodgk. 

"  Senator  Lodgk  says  that  the  amendment  to  the  covenant  as 
originally  reported,  which  excludes  from  the  consideration  of 
the  council  or  the  assembly  any  issue  which  by  international  law 
is  purely  domestic,  is  intended  to  deceive.  The  exception  was 
obviously  put  in  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  immigration  and 
tariff  from  among  the  issues  which  the  council  or  assembly  might 
consider  in  a  dispute. 

CITES    SUPKEME    COURT    RULIXO. 

"  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  said  that  it  is  an 
accepted  maxim  of  international  law  that  immigration  is  a  purely 
domestic  question,  as  well  as  the  imposition  of  tariffs.  I5ut 
Senator  Lodge  is  not  willing  to  trust  the  council  or  the  assembly 
to  follow  this  accepted  maxim  in  excluding  from  its  jurisdiction 
such  questions.  He  is  afraid  that  one  honest  and  impartial  rep- 
resentative on  the  council  can  not  be  found  who,  on  the  plea  of 
the  United  States,  would  uphold  this  accepted  maxim  of  inter- 
national law  in  determining  the  jurisdiction  of  the  council. 

"  This  unwillingness  to  assume  that  any  other  disinterested  na- 
tion iu  the  world  of  all  the  nations  will  be  fair  in  dealing  with  the 
lawful  rights  of  the  United  States  is  cliaractei-istic  of  the  atti- 
tude of  Senator  Lodge  and  tho.se  who  agree  wi(h  him.  Is  this 
uniting  'with  the  world  to  promote  the  peaceful  settlement  of 
all  international  disputes'?  Is  this  trying  'to  di-veloji  inter- 
national law'?  Is  this  'associating  ourselves  with  otlier  na- 
tions for  these  purposes  '  ? 

DEFENDS    ARTICLK    10. 

"  Senator  Lodge  attacks  article  10.     He  says  it  will  enable  (he 

King  of  Arabia,  Hu.ssein.  Sultan  of  Ilejaz,  to  api)(\il  1o  us  to  come 

and  help  him  defend  his  hdundary  against  the  aitack.s  of  Arabs 

in  his  neighborliood.     This  is  not  a  fair  construction  of  article 

134054— 19809 


10 

10.    All  tlic  lanKimse  of  article  10  should  be  read  together.    It 

looks  to  joint  operaiion  of  the  members  of  the  league.     It  says : 

"  The  members  of  the  league  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve 
as  against  external  aggression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing 
political  independence  of  all  members  of  the  league.  In  case  of  any 
8uch  aggression  or  in  case  of  any  threat  or  danger  of  such  aggression 
the  council  shall  advise  upon  the  means  by  which  this  obligation  shall 
be  fulfilled. 

"  In  other  words,  the  members  are  to  cooperate  and  the  coun- 
cil is  to  form  a  plan  for  their  cooperation.  Under  that  no  na- 
tion will  be  obliged  to  act  except  upon  the  advice  of  the  council, 
and  the  advice  of  the  council  would  limit  the  extent  of  its  obli- 
gation. 

"  The  action  of  the  council,  however,  Is  only  advisory,  and 
therefore  it  would  still  remain  for  the  members  in  good  faith  to 
determine  how  far  they  deemed  it  their  duty  to  act  upon  such 
advice  under  the  obligations  of  the  article.  Of  course,  for  us 
Congress  would  have  to  determine  how  far  it  would  act  upon 
such  advice  and  what  in  its  judgment  was  its  obligation  under 
the  article  to  comply  with  such  advice.  It  docs  not  seem  a  fair 
construction  of  the  article  to  say  that  it  constitutes  a  direct 
obligation  between  a  nation  whose  integrity  or  independence  is 
attacked  and  every  other  member  of  the  league.  It  is  a  league 
matter,  'lie  members  responding  to  carry  out  a  league  purpose 
under  the  cooperating  advice  of  the  council  of  the  league. 

QUOTES    JUSTICE    HUGHES. 

"  Mr.  .Justice  Iluglios,  in  the  reservations  which  he  has  sug- 
gested to  Senator  Hale,  has  given  a  very  excellent  construction 
of  what  this  article  10  moans.    lie  says : 

"  Fourth.  That  the  meaning  of  article  10  of  the  covenant  of  the 
league  of  nations  is  that  the  members  of  the  league  are  not  under  any 
obligation  to  act  in  pursuance  of  said  article  except  as  they  may  decide 
to  act  upon  the  advice  of  the  council  of  the  league.  The  United  States 
of  America  assumes  no  obligation  under  said  article  to  undertake  any 
military  expedition  or  to  employ  its  armed  forces  on  land  or  sea  unless 
such  action  is  authorized  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, which  has  exclusive  authority  to  declare  war  or  to  determine  for 
the  United  States  of  America  whether  there  Is  any  obligation  on  its 
part  under  said  article,  and  the  means  or  action  by  which  any  such 
obligation  shall  be  fulfilled. 

"  Such  an  interpretation  shows  that  the  illustration  of  Sena- 
tor Loi)OK  i.s  really  fanciful.    As  the  action  of  the  council  is  to 
134954— I'JSOO 


11 

be  unanimous,  and  as  the  United  States  has  a  member  on  It, 
the  character  of  its  advice  must,  of  course,  Ije  reasonable. 
Those  nations  in  the  neigliborhood  and  more  directly  interested 
in  the  Arabian  kingdom  are  the  ones  whom  the  council  would 
doubtless  advise  to  take  action  in  pursuance  of  article  10  in 
such  a  case.  The  council  would  not  attempt  to  draw  the  United 
States  in  until  the  trouble  growing  out  of  the  disturbance  bade 
fair  to  involve  world  consideration. 

SEXATOR   CHANGES    ATTITUDE. 

"  Senator  Lodge  objects  to  the  United  States  binding  itself  by 
war  or  boycott  to  cooperate  with  other  nations  in  suppressing 
war.  This  is  contrary  to  his  attitude  when  he  delivered  an 
address  at  a  dinner  of  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  in  Wash- 
ington in  1916,  at  which  both  he  and  President  Wilson  agreed 
that,  it  was  necessary  to  unite  the  forces  of  the  world  to  sup- 
press war.  Nor  was  his  judgment  at  that  time  doubtful.  On 
the  contrary,  he  enforced  the  firmness  of  his  conviction  by  the 
quotation  from  Matthew  Arnold : 

"  Charge  once  more,  then,  and  be  dumb ; 
Let  the  victors  when  they  come, 
When  the  forts  of  folly  fall, 
Find  the  body  by  the  wall. 

"  His  present  attitude  is  a  departure,  too,  from  the  position 

whicli  he  took  in  his  commencement  address  at  LTnion  College, 

in  391.J,  in  which  he  said  tliat  there  was  no  other  means  by 

wliicli  the  peace  of  the  world  could  be  maintained  except  by  a 

union  of  nations  to  enforce  peace. 

-  IGXORES  OBJECT  OF  LEAGUE. 

"  Now  the  Senator's  position  is  that  tlie  United  States  can 
better  contribute  to  the  peace  of  the  world  by  staying  out  of 
every  such  union  and  not  involving  itself  in  any  obligation  to 
act  until  the  occasion  shall  arise  when  it  may  then  determine 
what  it  will  do.  In  this  he  ignores  tlie  central  feature  of  any 
useful  league  of  nations  to  secure  peace.  The  object  of  a  league 
is  to  convince  tliose  who  would  disturb  the  peace  of  nations  that 
if  they  persist  in  sucli  a  course  the  union  of  tlie  nations  will 
inflict  on  tlieni  the  penally  of  i'orcil»le  restraint.  Its  purpose 
is  not  to  make  war — its  purpose  is  to  threaten  the  u.se  of  lawful 
1340.51— 19S09 


12 

force  to  restrain  lawless  violence.  It  is  the  minatory,  caution- 
ary effect  of  the  league  that  is  essentially  and  highly  important. 
"  It  is  tliis  feature  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  tliat  has  made  it  so 
successful.  It  was  tlie  knowledge  that  the  United  States  would 
fight,  if  need  be,  to  assert  the  doctrine  that  has  preserved  it 
and  peace  for  noAV  near  a  century.  But  if  the  United  States 
is  to  stay  out  of  this  league  and  not  obligate  itself  in  any  way 
to  add  to  the  weight  and  sanction  of  the  league,  then  much  of 
the  usefulness  of  the  covenant  is  gone. 

MEANS   DKIFTING    POLICY. 

"As  Senator  Williams  says,  the  attitude  of  the  United  States 
In  such  a  case  is  merely  drifting  and  waiting  until  we  are  driven 
into  a  position  in  which  we  must  fight,  as  we  were  driven  into 
this  war. 

"  More  than  tliis,  the  Senator's  contention  that  the  United 
States  can  do  more  good  I^y  staying  out  of  the  league  tlian  by 
going  in  ignores  the  fact  that  unless  tlie  United  States  enters 
the  league  it  will  cease  to  be  a  league  of  nations  and  will  be- 
come only  an  alliance  and  will  stinmlate  the  formation  of  other 
alliances  and  future  war.  It  is  the  world-surpassing  strength 
of  the  United  States  in  its  intelligent  people  and  its  resources, 
in  its  military  potentiality  and  in  its  comparative  disinterest- 
edness as  between  all  other  nations  which  makes  its  member- 
ship indispensable  to  a  world  league.  For  us  to  refuse  to  enter 
it  is  to  take  the  responsibility  of  destroying  its  possibility.  If 
cur  real  interests  require  it,  of  course,  Ave  shouh'.  refuse;  but 
in  determining  our  real  interests  we  should  face  this  responsi- 
bility. 

SHOULD     NOT    FEAH     DEFINITION. 

"  Senator  LCjuk  objects  to  the  reservation  of  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine contained  in  the  covenant.  It  is  very  diliicult  to  understand 
the  attitude  of  Senator  Lodge  and  many  others  with  respect  to 
the  Moin-oe  d^ictrine.  lie  says  that  the  instant  the  United 
States,  \\liirh  declared,  interpreted,  and  sustained  the  doctrine, 
ceases  to  be  the  sole  judg*'  of  what  it  means,  that  instant  the 
Monroe  d(Htrine  ceases  and  disappears  from  history  and  from 
th(>  fa.'o  of  the  earth,     lie  then  cpiotes  from  Theodore  Iloose- 


13 

velt  •  that  we  are  in  honor  bound  to  keep  ourselves  so  prepared 
that  the  Monroe  doctrine  shall  be  accepted  as  immutable  inter- 
national law.'  Senator  Lodge  objects  to  the  recognition  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine  by  anybody  else.  He  objects  to  its  definition. 
How  can  It  become  "  immutable  international  law "  unless  it 
has  definition  and  terms? 

"The  essence  of  law,  whether  municipal  or  international  or 
immutable,  is  its  definition  as  a  rule  of  action.  The  Monroe 
doctrine  certainly  affects  the  relations  between  non-American 
nations  and  American  nations.  It  is  certainly  a  limitation 
upon  the  right  of  American  nations  to  part  with  territory  and 
independence  to  non-American  nations  and  of  the  right  of  non- 
American  nations  to  secure  by  force  or  bargain  transfer  of  such 
territory  or  independence. 

NOT    MERE    DOMESTIC    POLICY. 

■  "  If  it  is  to  become  immutable  international  law,  then  it  must 
become  a  rule  of  action  both  for  American  and  non-American 
nations.  '  How  can  they  act  within  it  unless  they  know  what  it 

'is?  '  The  doctrine  is  not  a  mere  domestic  policy.  It  relates 
directly  to  international  relations  between  certain  classes  of 
nations.  Now,  the  attitude  of  Senator  Lodge  and  others,  if  one 
can  understand  them,  is  not  that  it  is  for  us  to  say  what  thuse 

■  relations  shall  be  and  for  us  to  refuse  to  define  what  those  re- 
lations shall  be  in  advance,  but  to  decide  v.hen  the  occasion 
arises  what  we  think  they  ought  to  be.  This  is  to  make  the 
doctrine  not  immutable  international  law.  It  is  to  make  it  an 
arbitrary  decree,  ex  post  facto. 

"  It  is  the  language  of  absolutism.  It  is  to  make  the  doctrine 
as  offensive  to  non-American  nations  and  to  American  nations 
other  than  ourselves  as  possible. 

"  For  tlie  tirst  time  we  liave  in  the  covenant  a  full  recognition 
of  the  Monroe  doctrine  as  something  which  this  covenant  is  not 
to  at'i'ect  or  interfen^  with.  Vet  we  even  resent  its  recognition 
and  (leelin(>  te  say  what  it  is.  Wliy  in  tlu>  name  of  all  that  is 
fair  and  reasonable  should  we  not  now  interpret  what  it  means, 
as  we  may  in  a  reservation,  and  let  the  world  which  wishes  to 
recogiuze  and  conform  to  ii  know  wluU  ii  is"^ 
134!!,- 1-    1!)S00 


14 

NO   DISrUTB   ON    WITHDRAWAL. 

"  The  question  of  witlidrawal  from  the  league,  upon  which 
Senator  Lodge  dwells,  is  not  one  that  calls  for  much  contro- 
versy, because  there  seems  to  be  a  general  agreement  that  it 
may  easily  be  interpreted  by  reservations  to  mean  that  the 
United  States  shall  cease  to  be  a  member  of  the  league  as  soon 
as  the  notice  for  two  years  expires,  and  that  any  failure  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  comply  with  international  law 
or  the  obligations  of  the  league  shall  not  prevent  the  cessation 
of  membership,  but  only  be  made  tlie  basis  for  a  claim  for  dam- 
ages against  the  United  States  if  any  such  exists. 

"  Nor  is  it  necessary  elaborately  to  discuss  Senator  TvODGe's 
Americanism,  in  the  maintenance  of  which  he  declares  that  his 
own  country  first  commands  his  allegiance.  He  does  not  differ 
from  most  other  Americans  in  that  respect,  nor  does  support  of 
the  covenant  mark  a  line  of  distinction  between  false  and  true 
Americanism.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  a  love  of  counfry 
and  with  a  preference  of  the  interests  of  one's  country  over 
those  of  all  other  nations  to  favor  a  union  of  nations  to  main- 
tain peace. 

NO    LESS    AMEniCAII    IN    1015. 

"  When  Senator  Lodge  advocated  this  at  the  dinner  of  the 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  or  at  the  commencement  exercises  of 
Union  College  in  1915  he  was  not  any  less  an  American  than  ho 
is  today.  Nor  are  those  who  favor  the  league  any  less  Ameri- 
crn  than  he  is.  Those  who  support  the  league  think  they  are 
exalting  their  country  in  making  it  properly  useful  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  peace  of  the  world,  in  the  benefits  of  which  their 
country  will  certainly  share,  and  they  believe  they  have  a 
broader  vision  of  the  noble  purposes  which  tlie  LTnited  States 
may  serve  when  tliey  would  have  it  take  its  stand  with  the  other 
nations  of  the  world  to  avoid  the  scourge  of  war  and  secure  a 
peace  which  will  work  for  the  benefit  of  all. 

"  It  should  be  noted  that  Senator  Lodge  does  not  dwell  on  any 
unconstitutional  feature  of  the  covenant.  Tiiis  is  hardly  in 
accord  with  the  recitals  of  Senator  Knox's  resolutions,  which 
Mr.  Lodge  voted  for  in  conunittec  and  reported  to  the  Senate. 
He  now  takes  the  stand  with  Mr.  Koot,  who  also  ignores  the 
134054—10809 


A    001  119  515    3 


15 


constitutional  objections,  and  so,  I  believe,  does  Mr.  Justice 
Hughes. 

"  If  there  had  been  any  doubt  in  anyone's  mind  on  tlie  subject 
of  tlie  constitutionality  of  the  covenant  reasonably  construed, 
it  should  be  removed  by  a  perusal  of  the  very  learned  and  useful 
discussion  of  tliese  issues  by  Senator  Kellogg  in  his  speech,  re- 
ported in  the  Congressional  Record  of  August  8,  and  in  the 
earlier  convincing  arguments  of  Senators  McCujibkr,  Colt,  and 
McNaky. 

"A  noteworthy  oiuission  in  Senator  Lodge's  speecli  is  of  any 
suggestion  as  to  how  tlie  treaty  with  Germany  is  to  be  enforced, 
liow  the  limitation  of  her  armament  is  to  be  secured,  how  the 
stabihty  of  the  nations  created  by  the  treaty  can  be  maintained 
in  accord  with  the  strategic  necessities  of  a  permanent  peace 
with  Germany,  luminously  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Lodge  in  his 
speech  on  tlie  proper  scope  of  a  treaty  of  peace  made  soon  after 
the  armistice,  or  how  the  .spread  of  IJolshevism,  which  lie  depre- 
cated and  wislied  restrained,  can  be  met. 

TREATY     BACKS    WAli    rUEPO.SE. 

"  Neitlier  he  nor  any  opponent  of  the  league  seems  to  regard 
the  treaty  of  peace  as  something  to  be  executed.  Its  chief 
function  now  is  to  furnish  objects  of  critical  attack.  Surely  the 
United  States  fought  the  war  to  acliieve  a  great  purpose.  Surely 
the  treaty  of  peace  is  to  be  the  embodiment  and  clincliing  of 
that  ptu'pose.  Surely  the  treaty  imposed  upon  an  unwilling 
fJerniany  and  tlie  other  treaties  imposed  upon  reluetant  Austria, 
Bulgaria,  and  Turlcey  will  not  enforce  themselves.  Who  nuLst 
enfoi'ce  llu>iii.  tiien?    Th(<  nations  who  fought  tlie  war. 

"They  must  continue  the  league  entered  into  lo  conduct  the 
war  and  now  amended  and  framed  to  m.-iintain  the  peace  they 
won.  This  is  the  essence  o!  the  coven.an.t,  and  upon  it  as  a  firm 
foundation  the  rearing  of  a  structui-e  prote«-ting  thi^  world 
agi'.insi  war  is  a  ureat  opportunity  and  an  easy  and  natural 
sleji  in  the  advan'^e  of  Christian  civilization.'' 
i:i4'j.")l     iiisu'j 

o 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


SRLF 
OL 


OCTl 


7  1994 


UBRARY 
HUBOC  AFFAIRS  SERVICE 

SEP  0  7  1990 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
JLOS  ANGELES 


